Intelligence Squared U.s. Debates

AI can write code, diagnose diseases, design buildings, and create art. Tools like ChatGPT, Claude and autonomous robots are transforming industries once seen as automation-proof, fueling fears of mass job loss. Some argue that machines will become so efficient that they will one day replace most human labor. Others say AI will augment work, not erase it, and historically, people have feared innovation killing jobs, which arguably hasn't come to pass. Now we debate: Will AI Make Work Obsolete?  Arguing Yes:  Andrew Yang, Founder of the Forward Party, Former Presidential Candidate  Simon Johnson, Nobel Prize-winning Economist; Professor of Entrepreneurship and Head of the Global Economics and Management Group at MIT  Arguing No:  Chris Hughes, Co-Founder of Facebook; Chair of the Economic Security Project; Author of "Marketcrafters"  Rumman Chowdhury, CEO of Humane Intelligence PBC; Former U.S. Science Envoy for Artificial Intelligence  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conv

Are we in a News Media Golden Age, or a fragmented era? In this “Generational Divides” episode, Reason editor-at-large Nick Gillespie brings together Baby Boomer, Millennial, and Gen Z voices to debate how our media landscape is changing. Are more platforms expanding truth, or blurring the line between news and entertainment? Are journalists accountable to funders, audiences, or the truth? As industry shakeups like recent Washington Post layoffs signal change, what does the future of news media look like?  For Baby Boomers: Kurt Andersen, Novelist, and Former Host of NPR's "Studio 360"; Co-founder of Spy magazine  For Millennials: Nellie Bowles, Journalist & Co-Founder of The Free Press   For Gen Z: Rachel Janfaza, Journalist & Founder of The Up and Up Substack; Contributor to The Bulwark  Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large at Reason, is the guest moderator.  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters

Today we're playing you an episode of Smart Girl Dumb Questions, a show hosted by journalist and frequent Open to Debate guest moderator Nayeema Raza. She speaks to Andrew Ross Sorkin about some highly-debated topics, from a looming market crash to AI battles to … whether we actually learned anything from past recessions (especially that one in 2008!).  Get more Smart Girl Dumb Questions on Apple, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get podcasts. Nayeema has compelling conversations with Mark Cuban on if billionaires can save us, Paul Krugman about whether we’re counting the economy wrong, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye about what happened to expertise and science guys and Esther Perel on why it’s harder to fall in love in 2020s vs the 1980s. Guaranteed to make you laugh & learn every Tuesday.  We also highly recommend Andrew Ross Sorkin’s bestselling book ⁠1929⁠. For more insightful conversation, visit Open to Debate's Substack—share your perspectives and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insi

Your smartphone feels sleek and futuristic—but the supply chain behind it is anything but. In this conversation with moderator-in-chief John Donvan, journalist and “The Elements of Power” author Nicolas Niarchos showcases how lithium-ion batteries rely on cobalt mined under dangerous, exploitative conditions. Tracing a line from colonialism to today’s U.S.–China power struggle, he asks us to Think Twice on this question: what human and environmental costs are hidden inside the technology that powers modern life?  Our Guest: Nicolas Niarchos, Journalist and Author of “The Elements of Power”  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Love in the time of AI? Some people seeking romance or friendship are turning to AI chatbots to fulfill those desires, but could they surpass traditional human relationships? Those who say they can argue that AI can offer empathy and safety, and it’s a solution for those left out of traditional dating. Those saying they can’t argue that intimacy is complicated and cannot be replicated in code. Now we debate: Could Dating an AI Be Better Than Dating a Human?  Arguing Yes: Thao Ha, Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the @HEART Lab at Arizona State University    Arguing No: Justin Garcia, Executive Director & Senior Scientist at the Kinsey Institute; Chief Scientific Advisor to Match.com; Author of "The Intimate Animal"  Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator.  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us

Greenland has become a geopolitical flashpoint. President Trump wants control of it, or at least sovereignty over some areas for military purposes, arguing that the United States gaining some territorial rights in Greenland is a necessity for U.S. security. But some leaders worry that a power grab could pit NATO against the U.S. and weaken an already fragile world order. Now we debate: Is U.S. Control of Limited Territory In Greenland a Strategic Necessity?  Arguing Yes:  Alexander B. Gray, Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council; Former Deputy Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff of the White House National Security Council  Michael Pillsbury, Senior Advisor for the President’s Office at The Heritage Foundation  Arguing No:  Kori Schake, Senior Fellow and the Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)  Max Boot, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations; Columnist at The Washi

In December of 2025, New York State Governor Kathy Hochul announced that after months of negotiations with the state legislature, she was finally ready to sign into law a new bill allowing some patients to request medical assistance in dying, or MAID. That bill is currently sitting on her desk waiting for her signature.  This type of bill has become more and more common. In 1994, Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act, becoming the first state to allows physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Now 12 states plus the District of Columbia have laws on the books allowing physicians to assist patients in ending their life, within limits. Patients must have a prognosis of less than six months to live, and they must take the medication themselves.   As more and more states discuss passing their own versions of these bills, we revisit the debate we had on this very topic in 2014. The motion that we debated: Legalize assisted suicide. While the preferred language has changed to Medical Aid in Dying, the

Every click, search, and online purchase feeds the data economy, driving AI, global business, and even political campaigns. But with risks growing in the private and public spheres, is Big Data advancing society or undermining its foundations? Supporters argue Big Data powers innovation by fueling breakthroughs in medicine, public health, and everyday efficiency. Yet critics warn that it erodes privacy, concentrates power, and threatens democracy. In the age of algorithms and analytics, is Big Data a necessary innovation or a dangerous intrusion?  Arguing "Innovation": Kenneth Cukier, Deputy Executive Editor at The Economist   Arguing "Intrusion": Carissa Véliz, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Philosophy and the Institute for Ethics in AI at the University of Oxford  Xenia Wickett, Geopolitical strategist, moderator at Wickett Advisory, and Trustee of Transparency International UK, is the guest moderator.  Join the conversation on our Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to

Prostitution remains heavily stigmatized and legally complex globally. Those in favor of paying for sex and support decriminalization argue that it’s a profession that deserves as much respect as any other. Those against it, and who support the Nordic Model, argue that prostitution leads to inequities between sex buyers and workers, exploitation, and coercion, and can open the door to human trafficking. Now we debate: Is It OK to Pay for Sex?  Arguing Yes: Kaytlin Bailey, Sex Workers Rights Advocate; Founder & Executive Director of Old Pros and Host of “The Oldest Profession Podcast”   Arguing No: Yasmin Vafa, Human Rights Attorney; Co-Founder and Executive Director at Rights4Girls  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Millions of people have credited Alcoholics Anonymous with helping them stay sober from alcohol, but is it the best path for everyone? Those who say “yes” argue it is easily accessible to all and that its structure through the 12-step program helps people succeed. Those who say “no” argue say the abstinence model doesn’t work for everyone and there may be better alternatives. Now we debate: Does AA Work?     Arguing Yes: Dan Griffin, Expert on Alcoholics Anonymous; Author of “A Man’s Way Through the Twelve Steps”  Arguing No: Adi Jaffe, Founder of IGNTD; Author of “The Abstinence Myth”  Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Co-Host of the Semafor Podcast “Mixed Signals”, is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From the 19th Amendment to the #MeToo movement, the feminist movement has profoundly reshaped society. But have its good intentions backfired? Those arguing it hasn’t note that it’s allowed women the choice of living on their own terms. But critics argue that its culture glorifying full-time careerism and independence can make women feel inadequate if they prefer traditional roles like having a family. Now we debate: Has Feminism Hurt Women?  Arguing Yes: Inez Stepman, Senior Policy and Legal Analyst at the Independent Women's Forum and Independent Women’s Law Center     Arguing No: Wendy Walsh, Relationship Journalist; Host of ”The Dr. Wendy Walsh Show” on iHeart Radio’s KFI AM 640    Xenia Wickett, Geopolitical strategist, moderator at Wickett Advisory, and Trustee of Transparency International UK, is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

America is suffering from a loneliness epidemic. Some groups have suggested religious communities may be key to solving it. Could it help? Those arguing “yes” say it gives people regular social contact, support systems, and a sense of purpose that could combat isolation. Those arguing “no” say that secular options would provide better, broad-based solutions. Now we debate: Can Religion Cure the Loneliness Epidemic?    Arguing Yes:   Harold Koenig, Director of Duke University’s Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health   Chris Murphy, Senator from Connecticut     Arguing No:  Ruth Whippman, Author of "America the Anxious: How Our Pursuit of Happiness Is Creating a Nation of Nervous Wrecks" and "BOYMOM: Reimagining Boyhood in the Age of Impossible Masculinity."  Dan Barker, Co-President of the Freedom from Religion Foundation  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

 Couples have arguments over many topics. However, it’s through resolving conflict that both people in the relationship feel heard and seen. Psychotherapist, relationship expert, and New York Times-bestselling author Esther Perel says conflict when navigated skillfully can lead to growth, resilience, and a stronger bond. In this conversation with John Donvan, Perel shares her experience working with different relationship types, strategies for transforming conflict into a constructive dialogue, and the importance of validating both sides’ perspectives.    Our guest: Esther Perel, Psychotherapist and New York Times bestselling author     Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Has Big Tech become too powerful? Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, Meta, and Microsoft shape how we shop, communicate, and consume information. But has their dominance gone too far? Advocates argue these firms are monopolies that harm competition, exploit consumer data, and wield disproportionate influence over public discourse. Structural reforms would restore fairness and innovation. But critics warn that breakups could damage user experience, slow innovation, and disrupt integrated ecosystems people rely on. Now we debate: Should the U.S. Government Break Up Big Tech? Arguing Yes:   Bharat Ramamurti, Founder of The Bully Pulpit; Former Deputy Director of the National Economic Council   Matt Stoller, Director of Research at the American Economic Liberties Project     Arguing No:   Geoffrey A. Manne, President and Founder of the International Center for Law & Economics  Jennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow in Technology Policy at the Cato Institute    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates   

What does it take to moderate a debate? How do we keep conversations civil when the world feels so polarized? In celebration of our launch on Substack, moderator-in-chief John Donvan joins Nayeema Raza and Reason’s Nick Gillespie for a lively conversation on the craft of moderation and the art of asking questions that reveal rather than inflame. Featuring audience Q&A and behind-the-scenes insight, this episode offers a candid look at how meaningful dialogue is created today.  Our Guests:   John Donvan, Open to Debate's Moderator-in-Chief and Emmy award-winning journalist  Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions"  Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large at Reason  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Effective altruism is a philosophical and social movement that uses empirical data to maximize the impact of charitable efforts. Those who champion EA praise its methodological framework for maximizing the effectiveness of donations, thus ensuring equal consideration for all individuals. Those who challenge EA argue that its emphasis on measurable outcomes may overlook important yet hard-to-quantify causes, potentially restricting the scope of what's considered beneficial. Now we debate: Does the Effective Altruism Movement Get Giving Right?    Arguing Yes: Peter Singer, Author of “The Most Good You Can Do”; Philosopher and Emeritus Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University   Arguing No: Alice Crary, Co-Editor of “The Good it Promises, The Harm it Does: Critical Essays on Effective Altruism”; University Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at The New School for Social Research  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit our Substack to wa

he Trump administration is taking the War on Drugs in a bold direction, using aircraft carriers, intelligence networks, and direct military strikes to target alleged smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. Supporters of militarization argue that previous strategies to stop cartels have failed, and only aggressive deterrence will stop the crisis. Others warn that militarization usually fails to stop drug flows, risking civilian casualties, and rarely achieves lasting results. Now we debate: Should the U.S. Militarize the War on Drugs?    Arguing Yes:  Sean McFate, Author and Professor of Strategy at the National Defense University and Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service  Andrés Martínez-Fernández, Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America at The Heritage Foundation's Allison Center for National Security    Arguing No:   Will Freeman, Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations  Aileen Teague, Assistant Professor of International Affairs at Texas A&M

We are pleased to share an episode from the Clearer Thinking Podcast featuring Open to Debate Founder Robert Rosenkranz in conversation with Spencer Greenberg. About this episode: What makes a forum truly open-minded rather than performative? When does listening change minds instead of just hardening identities? Are we teaching citizens to separate facts from frames? Do the best debates surface values as well as evidence? How can we reward calm argument over outrage economics? What reforms reduce polarization without dulling real disagreement? Should any topic be off-limits in a free society? Is philanthropy giving back—or building what’s missing? Should generosity optimize impact or express the values we want to grow? How much risk is acceptable when the upside is transformative? Robert Rosenkranz is a dedicated philanthropist, an advocate for intellectual engagement, and respected commentator on philanthropy. He founded Delphi Capital Management and championed the renowned Open to Debate debate serie

How big is the divide between different age groups? In this inaugural episode of a new Open to Debate series, “Generational Divides,” Reason’s editor-at-large Nick Gillespie brings together a Baby Boomer, a Gen X-er, and a Gen Z-er to discuss Social Security benefits and how they’ll affect future generations, homeownership, and 1950s nostalgia, where they examine the cultural and economic shifts occurring around intergenerational wealth and how each generation views money, opportunity, and the American Dream.  Our Guests:  For Baby Boomers: Joe Nocera, Deputy Managing Editor at The Free Press  For Gen X: Stacey Vanek Smith, Journalist and Reporter; Co-host of "Everybody's Business" at Bloomberg Business   For Gen Z: Kyla Scanlon, Financial Content Creator, Economic Commentator and Author of "In This Economy?"  Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large at Reason, is the guest moderator.    Visit our Substack to watch more insightful debates and subscribe to our newsletter.   Learn more about your ad choices. Vi

The U.S. and China are the two largest competitors in the race for semiconductors and in creating the most powerful AI chips. Europe could become a major stakeholder thanks to its demand for tech sovereignty and lithography near-monopoly, while others see the continent as too hampered by regulation, labor, and limited venture capital to get ahead. Now, in partnership with Bloomberg, we debate: Is Europe Too Late to Compete in the Chip Wars? Arguing "Too Late":    Zach Meyers, Director of Research at the Centre on Regulation in Europe (CERRE)  Geoffrey Gertz, Former Director for International Economics at the White House; Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security     Arguing "Not Too Late:  Cristina Caffarra, Economist & Co-founder of EuroStack  Eric Baissus, CEO of Kalray  Caroline Hyde, Bloomberg Television Anchor and Host of “Bloomberg Technology”, is the guest moderator.    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed o